1/40 Supersaurus- Released

[dinonikes]

Mar 25, 2009 1:22:22 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

Mar 25, 2009 1:20:03 GMT Tyrannax said:

WS is built for looks, not so much accuracy.

And those feet look horrible! And I am pretty sure they go for accuracy in their line.


Did you start "claying it up" yet dinonikes?

Yes I did start to rough in the clay a bit between other tasks- I am working on many things at once right now jumping from one to the next- that is how I work usually- then all these things come together at about the same time-

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

I can't wait to see it.

[tetonbabydoll]

Kinto's sauropod feet are perfectly accurate, horseshoe shape and all.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Mar 25, 2009 8:02:00 GMT @tetonbabydoll said:

Kinto's sauropod feet are perfectly accurate, horseshoe shape and all.

;D But did they ever work with the collectors to make the PERFECT dinosaur toy line? I think not ;D

[dinonikes]

This chart is tempting me--lol

seriously how cool would that big one be, a full five feet of sauropod in 1:40 scale- that one would have to be cast in the latex material I use, or resin/fiberglass- never heard of that one before, must be one of those that they have only found like one bone of and extrapolated from that-

[piltdown]

^ Please do all of them I'll get another coffee table just to display them

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Oh yes...by all means...be tempted... lol

[timlee3005]

I would like to see some of the classics along the lines of Apatosaurus and Diplodocus too.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Supersaurus is pretty close to Diplodocus and Safari did a really nice 1/40 scale revision last year of it. Apatosaurus might be alright.... but Supersaurus is inspiration I like getting species we've never seen done before... one reason I suggested Argentinosaurus... it looks diff from the other HUGE sauropods... ;D

[Meso-Cenozoic]

I don't know if it makes that much difference. But from what I understand, Supersaurus is an extra large cousin of Apatosaurus and Seismosaurus is the longer cousin of Diplodocus. Supersaurus was a heavier animal like Apato and Seismo was a more slender animal with a longer tail like Diplo.

But, quibbling aside, ever since I found that graph above, I want a Amphicoelias fragillimus! Heck, I'll even build everyone a new coffee table to put this one on! LOL!! ;D

Like Blade said, keep being tempted, Malcolm!

Oh, BTW, Malcolm, I'm glad you copy & pasted that graph over here. When I posted it, I thought I was in this thread, by what I had been reading in the Acro thread. It definitely belongs in here!

[Meso-Cenozoic]

I just noticed that tiny little "60 meters" on top of that long measurement arrow. 60 meters is about 197 feet! O - M - G!!!

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Let's say we keep to the bigger guys...

Supersaurus for a Apato-type
Seismosaurus for a Diplo-type
Bruhatkayosaurus for a Argentinosaurus
Amphicoelias for itself... it looks diff than any others there.

Anyone want to dig up some info on those last two ? I'm getting ready to head out and find a bite to eat.

[timlee3005]

Mar 27, 2009 6:04:11 GMT Blade-of-the-Moon said:

Let's say we keep to the bigger guys...

Supersaurus for a Apato-type
Seismosaurus for a Diplo-type
Bruhatkayosaurus for a Argentinosaurus
Amphicoelias for itself... it looks diff than any others there.

Anyone want to dig up some info on those last two ? I'm getting ready to head out and find a bite to eat.

I wouldn't mind seeing any or all of these at some point,really.

Here's some interesting things concerning Amphicoelias

"The type species of Amphicoelias, A. altus, was named by paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope in December 1877 (though not published until 1878) for an incomplete skeleton consisting of two vertebrae, a pubis (hip bone), and a femur (upper leg bone)."



The second Amphicoelias species, A. fragillimus, is known only from a single, incomplete 1.5 m tall neural arch (the rear portion of a back vertebra), either last or second to last in the vertebral series, D10 or D9, that would have measured 2.7 m (8.8 ft) long in life. In addition to this single vertebra, Cope's field notes contain an entry for an "mmense distal end of femur” located only a few tens of meters away from the giant vertebra, and it is likely that this undescribed leg bone belonged to the same individual animal as the neural spine.




"...because the only fossil remains were lost at some point after being studied and described in the 1870s, evidence survives only in drawings and field notes."



Good luck reconstructing this one ;D

[Meso-Cenozoic]

You're going out to eat now, lol! Isn't it about 1:30am there? Oh well, I'm kinda hungry for some ice cream now!

Go eat. I'll go and see what I can dig up (no pun intended) on these guys!

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Blade, BTW, look again at the chart. There is an Argentinosaurus already represented there. And, look how small he looks to those other two, lol!

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Captain Obvious, I knew some of these were only based on a few bones. But just that one bone for the Amphicoelias fragillimus, that's ridiculous, lol!!

[timlee3005]

"Bruhathkayosaurus, meaning 'huge bodied lizard') might have been the largest dinosaur that ever lived. The accuracy of this claim, however, has been mired in controversy and debate. All the estimates are based on Yadagiri and Ayyasami's 1989 paper, which announced the find.
The authors originally classified the dinosaur as a theropod, a member of a large group of bipedal, carnivorous dinosaurs that includes Tyrannosaurus, but several unpublished opinions beginning in 1995 suggested that the remains actually belonged to a sauropod (probably a titanosaur), a member of a very different group of quadrupedal, herbivorous dinosaurs with long necks and tails similar to Brachiosaurus. In 2006, the first published reference to Bruhathkayosaurus as a sauropod appeared in a survey of Malagasy vertebrates by David Krause and colleagues.

Until the remains are properly described, the validity of any estimates will be questionable."





"Bruhathkayosaurus was found near the southern tip of India, specifically in the Tiruchirapalli district of Tamil Nadu, to the northeast of Kallamedu village. It was recovered from the rocks of the Kallemedu Formation, which are dated to the Maastrichtian faunal stage of the late Cretaceous period. It lived toward the end of Mesozoic era, about 70 million years ago. The fossilized remains include hip bones (the ilium and ischium), part of a leg bone (femur), a shin bone (tibia), a forearm (radius) and a tail bone (part of a vertebra, specifically a platycoelous caudal centrum). The remains were originally classified as belonging to a carnosaur.The name chosen, Bruhathkayosaurus, is derived from bruhath (misspelled Sanskrit brhat (बृहत), huge, or heavy), and kâya (काय) (body); and the Greek sauros (lizard)."



"The Bruhathkayosaurus genus has only one known species, Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi. The species is represented by the holotype specimen GSI PAL/SR/20, which was described by Yadagiri and Ayyasami in 1989 (not 1987, as some sources indicate). It was originally classified as a carnosaur (like Allosaurus), of an unknown (incertae sedis) family. It was later recognized as a sauropod.

The original publication described little in the way of diagnostic characteristics and was only supported by a few line drawings. This has led to speculation that the bones might actually be petrified wood, akin to the way the original discoverers of Sauroposeidon initially believed their find to be fossilized tree trunks."



"According to the published description, the shin bone (tibia) of Bruhathkayosaurus is 2 m (6.6 ft) long. This is 29 percent larger than the tibia of Argentinosaurus, which is only 1.55 m (5.08 ft) long. Comparing the bones in the upper forelimb gives a similar result. While the humerus of Bruhathkayosaurus is incomplete, it is extrapolated to have been 2.34 m (7.68 ft) long. This is 30 percent larger than the humerus of Argentinosaurus, which is 1.81 m (5.94 ft) long.

"No total body size estimates for Bruhathkayosaurus have been published, but paleontologists and researchers have posted tentative estimates on the Internet. One early estimate by Mickey Mortimer estimated that Bruhathkayosaurus could have reached 40 m (130 ft) to 44.1 m (145 ft) in length and to have weighed from 175 to 220 tons. However, Mortimer later retracted these estimates, reducing his estimated length of Bruhathkayosaurus to 28 - 34 m (90 - 110 ft), and declined to provide a new weight estimate, describing the older mass estimates as inaccurate.In a May 2008 article for the Weblog Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week, paleontologist Matt Wedel used a comparison with Argentinosaurus and calculated the weight of Bruhathkayosaurus at up to 139 tons.

By comparison, the titanosaur Argentinosaurus is estimated to have reached 34.6 m (114 ft) in length, and to have weighed from 80 to 100 tons. Another huge titanosaurid, Paralititan, was probably 31.9 m (105 ft) long, and weighed 65 to 80 tons. All of these sauropods are known only from partial or fragmentary remains, so the size estimates are uncertain. Length is calculated by comparing existing bones to the bones of similar dinosaurs, which are known from more complete skeletons and scaling them up isometrically. However, such extrapolation can never be more than an educated guess and the length of the tail, in particular, is often hard to judge. Determining mass is even more difficult, because little evidence of soft tissues survives in the fossil record. In addition, isometric scaling is based on the assumption that body proportions remain the same, which is not necessarily the case. In particular, the proportions of the titanosaurs are not well known, due to a limited number of relatively complete specimens.

If the size estimates for Bruhathkayosaurus are accurate, the only real competition would be the blue whale. Mature blue whales can exceed 33 m (110 ft) in length, which is a little shorter than Bruhathkayosaurus, but the record-holder blue whale weighed in at 195 tons,which is probably heavier than Bruhathkayosaurus.

Among the dinosaurs, only another poorly known specimen may approach or exceed Bruhathkayosaurus in size. Edward Drinker Cope's Amphicoelias fragillimus would have been longer, reaching 56 to 62 m (185 to 200 ft) in length, but it was a slender diplodocid, weighing only 120 tons. Unfortunately, the only bone recovered (a massive vertebra) is now missing, and only a description and drawing of the specimen remain"

Good luck with this too ;D

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Amphicoelias fragillimus
"very fragile double cavity"

www.azhdarcho.com/Art/Paleoart/amphi.html


Ah, this is funny. I have DinoSapien on Discovery Kids on the TV right now. And, some kid just said, Didn't you know that the largest dinosaur was the Agentinosaurus? He was as long as four school buses! LOL!

[timlee3005]

Mar 27, 2009 6:33:56 GMT Meso-Cenozoic said:

Captain Obvious, I knew some of these were only based on a few bones. But just that one bone for the Amphicoelias fragillimus, that's ridiculous, lol!!

Nope,just that DRAWING of that one bone ;D

Fragmentary as some of the others may be,they still have enough relatives to help fill in the gaps at least.

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Here's another amazing size comparison graph...